W6 – Culture and Emotion
This is the sixth week of the course Cultural Psychology, and I am too tired to read the same concepts continuously. Maybe the Handbook should have a longer introduction with mainstream terms such as independence, interdependence, Asian-American, figure-background, face-mouth, and self-other, so we do not have to read similar findings in each chapter. I know they are the key and essential concepts to consider, but I have a hard time focusing on what I read anymore.
I would like to share some points that caught my attention.
The two-dimensional affect model impressed me. When I first saw the low arousal positive states, I thought this was the ideal one because regularly feeling high might be tiring (Also, there may be some issues according to dopamine release) in the long term. After I mentioned these, I saw HAP predicts depression. Being in low arousal positive mood, and peaceful is my expectation from myself because I have been on the side of LAN for a long time. Nevertheless, after considering myself, low arousal states generally matched with Easterns were not surprising.
According to the finding comparing suppression of anger in independent and interdependent self-construals, psychotherapy settings should be re-evaluated in Eastern cultures.
Aligned with the chapter, we witnessed numerous instances where Syrian immigrants are marginalized in media channels of Turkey by associating specific negative emotions, such as insecurity, with them, and it has had several consequences on innocents (even referencing a Syrian whether as “innocent” or not, is discriminative in a way).
Findings mostly give consistent results, but we see the need for follow-up studies at the end of many of them. Studies should go one step further.
Comparing expressing anger with the frame of social status in the US and Japan is the most interesting approach in the chapter for me.
Disagreeing with the authors, I guess the difference in emotional suppression and product of Protestants versus Catholic and Jewish participants may be due to not directly religion, but the historical and political background of the evolution and the development of Protestantism.
‹ W4 – Culture Shapes Cognition and Perception W7 – from Prenatal Development to Beyond ›
Hi Zeynep, I am totally agree with you about the presence of some repetetive structures. From my point of view it is so valuable for you to interpret emotional regulation terms based on yourself because most of the time it becomes more effective when we internalize the information process it from ourselves. As a criticism, maybe you could have expand your own thoughts with more examples closer to the textbook. Yet, it was very enjoyable to rea, thank you.
RENEWED VERSION:
This is the sixth week of the course Cultural Psychology, and I am too tired to read the same concepts continuously. Maybe the Handbook should have a longer introduction with mainstream terms such as independence, interdependence, Asian-American, figure-background, face-mouth, and self-other, so we do not have to read similar findings in each chapter. I know they are the key and essential concepts to consider, but I have a hard time focusing on what I read anymore.
I would like to share some points that caught my attention.
The two-dimensional affect model impressed me. When I first saw the low arousal positive states, I thought this was the ideal one because regularly feeling high might be tiring (Also, there may be some issues according to dopamine release) in the long term. After I mentioned these, I saw HAP predicts depression. Being in a low arousal positive mood, and peaceful is my expectation from myself, and after considering myself, low arousal states generally matched with Easterns were not surprising.
According to the finding comparing suppression of anger in independent and interdependent self-construals, psychotherapy settings should be re-evaluated in Eastern cultures.
Aligned with the chapter, we witnessed numerous instances where Syrian immigrants are marginalized in media channels of Turkey by associating specific negative emotions, such as insecurity, with them, and it has had several consequences on innocents (even referencing a Syrian whether as “innocent” or not, is discriminative in a way).
Findings mostly give consistent results, but we see the need for follow-up studies at the end of many of them. Studies should go one step further.
In my perspective, the most interesting approach in the chapter is comparing expressing anger with the frame of social status in the US and Japan considering its adjustment varying in different circumstances, and the previous discussions on culture x person x situation interactions.
Disagreeing with the authors, I guess the difference in emotional suppression and product of Protestants versus Catholic and Jewish participants may be due to not directly religion, but the historical and political background of the evolution and the development of Protestantism.